GT Zaskar 2012 - full suspension!
supersonic
Posts: 82,708
What are they doing lol!
22lbs the build apparently. But Zaskars should by HTs!
22lbs the build apparently. But Zaskars should by HTs!
0
Comments
-
Ugh, GT have such a big list of old bike names they could have rehashed as well, much like they did with the Karakoram
I do curiously like it though, looks like their new Team Carbon (which oddly doesn't seem to have come to the UK?).0 -
I think they should make a carbon zaskar HT that is designed for 140 mm forks...0
-
leaflite wrote:I think they should make a carbon zaskar HT that is designed for 140 mm forks...
They could name it the "Zaskar 456"?0 -
HMMM... looks good, but it's not really a zaskar is it?I like bikes and stuff0
-
They should name it the "sazkar" just to mess with people. And cause even more confusion on mountain bike forums when people are talking about their "breaks not woking when they did some dh trials on their sazkar"0
-
I like bikes and stuff0 -
I know it's just a name but, but, it's like making a classic like the stumpy a full sus! Oh, hang on...0
-
I'll suss your stump in a minute.supersonic wrote:I know it's just a name but, but, it's like making a classic like the stumpy a full sus! Oh, hang on...
I've said for years that the guys at Marin are smoking something strong.
B-17 circa 1997 = their DH bike
Quake circa 1998 = their dirt jump tiny hardtail
B-17 circa 2005 - onwards = their hardnut trail hardtail
Quake circa 2005- onwards = their freeride/DH rig.
Then there's the appearance/dissappearance of the Wolf ridge - which I hope they stick with, since I currently own the first and last one, it gives me a sense of importance
BUT... They were not classics, really. They say that they named the bikes after the trails that inspired them, but their short term memories must be buggered or something.
Messing with "Zaskar" though, is the kind of thing that GT religious fundamentalists (like your good self) would launch a jihad about.
What's next, will they re-launch the LTS, STS and RTS names too? As 29er rigids? All classics in their own right.
You know, on reflection, I think the "Zaskar" name on this bike might be a kind of joke from GT.0 -
It's a ploy to get the old school zaskar fans who have aged into a bit of comfort hehe.0
-
Maybe they have put the holy Zaskar name to a full sus because they finally made i-drive work properly. 0
-
Zaskars suck anyway, a boring ht or a boring fs.0
-
I see the art of reasoned discussion is not lost.beanieripper wrote:Zaskars suck anyway, a boring ht or a boring fs.0 -
it is reasoned, I've owned one (1998) , ridden it, thought it had no major failings but was an extremely boring bike to ride, i didnt really get it, wether on a 25m or 85 mile ride..0
-
The rider makes a bike boring ;-). And let's be honest, that was 13 years ago lol. The new frames are a little different.0
-
The point about the zaskar was always that it could handle some serious abuse. If you weren't dishing out that kind of abuse, then as Sonic says, it's probably the fault of the boring rider.
Unless you mean that what makes an interesting bike is an unstable, unpredictable chassis, which evenyually inspires no confidence to push it.0 -
That surely has be a marketing scam or wind up.
The Zaskar is a piece of mtb history and GT must know this.
So I can only assume that they have done that to provoke threads like this one and gain them some free marketing and publicity
0 -
Nah, is true from my sources! Hans Rey is going to proudly show his in June...0
-
Yeh I've read it on a few forums now since making the above post.
Seems a little odd, but could well just be a marketing ploy - only not in the way I initially thought.
The Zaskar has a die hard fan base that will always remember them as a HT, but it also carries such respect as a name that it could bring GT back out of the also rans with regards to sales.
I can't let my damn Zaskar go and rest peacefully, so the name must carry some power. 0 -
I could sort of see it coming. Various dumbed down versions have released over the years: the Elite crept on the scene, now a Comp and Sport. Is basically so people can get the name cheap, and now with the FS, just so they can have an FS one! Lets hope the cheaper ones haven't harmed the 'image' lol.
GT have lost their way a bit with sales. Not helping that the distributor isn't bringing in two models that would appeal to the 'UK' market ie the Distortion and Avalanche X. I also think their website is utter garbage and needs a total overhaul in how it is presented, with better explainations of technology.
In addition they have had a price point restructuring by the owners, who also own Cannondale and Mongoose, amongst others. Cannondale represents the top end brand name, while GT sits second. Mongoose are the budget offerings. Iron Horse is defunct as we know. This is also why GT have pulled out of Halfords now, to focus on a more up market position, and why I think prices have increased more than average. But to succeed, they need that website sorting! And some more innovation, as other brands are leaving them begind in the ultra lightweight stakes.0 -
Agree on all of the above.
I remember my first GT back in 91 (14 tonne Timberline) and whilst the bike itself was nothing too special, the brand had respect in the industry.
For me this progressed up until around 2000 when they moved production and chopped up the dealer network to leave a washy non focussed brand swimming against the tide.
I too hope they can resurrect things and break free of the image they now possess.
Funny really as for me Trek went the other way and are now at the top of their game.
The first Trek bikes were nothing too special and they owe a lot to Lance Armstrong giving the brand a position and funds from the road bikes.
Anyway, I digress. Bring back the good ol days of GT 0 -
90s was THE decade for them, were at the forefront of many technologies and innovation. RTS and LTS were runaway successes, and the STS:
Even today it doesn't look too old! OK it disintegrated as the alloy attachments fell off over time lol, but that front triangle was just a single tube of thermoplastic, way ahead of what others were thinking.0 -
Didn't STS stand for Single Tube System? I'm sure I read that somewhere. But yes, a very forward thinking bike.
When I was growing up and getting into proper MTBs, rather than just trying to ride any old bicycle down the sides of mountains, I always looked up to GTs, they seemed to have a brand that oozed that slightly "bad boy" image, which was pretty cool back then. It kind of suggested that if you wanted to be doing things that shouldn't be done on a bicycle (which is what MTBing is about, really, ain't it?), a GT was what you needed.
Funny how you mention that Cannondale are now considered the "presitge" brand. I've always seen Cannondale to be the Audi of the bike world. Well made, well thought out, reliable, but ultimately, boring.0 -
Single Tube Sytsem, indeed it was! Confusingly, LTS and STS referred to the suspension system lol. When I first saw a Zaskar at 19 years old, I just wanted it. And Peaty had one lol.
I've always thought of Cannondale to be innovative too, built some astonishingly light alu frames in the 90s (many failed mind!), and lots of inhouse stuff like the Hollowgram cranks, HeadShok, flexing carbon and Lefties. Some of this thinking has made itself into modern standards, like 1.5 headtubes. Others failed though, like 4 bolt rotors lol.
Did I ever want one? Not really! I do respect that they do try new stuff, and we see Spesh doing a lot of it now. Many complain that it is more standards, but to an extent I think we need to push existing standards as they get out of date as tech moves forward. Too many though does complicate issues.0 -
Meh, I always got the idea that Cannondale do new stuff, not for any real benefit to riders, but because they CAN, and they can then patent it. Much, in fact, like Audi.
I still refuse to believe there's any advantage to a lefty fork. They, and their fans bang on about how stiff they are and how much lighter, but if they used the same technology, they could make much the same fork stiffer using two legs, and end up using less material, I'm sure of it. Plus it would allow a wider choice of hubs/wheels, and allow the wheel to be removed without having to disengage the brake.0 -
I don't have much experience with lefty (for the reasons you say!), but at a claimed 2.64lbs for the lightest 100mm XC unit is certainly featherweight - as light as the original SID. But the price is amazing! But if you want the lightest, people will pay ;-)0
-
Impressive weight, yes, but imagine all the re-inforcement that has to go into it to make it stiff enough. Add another leg, and make each one lighter than the one single. Then you've got my interest.0
-
Not sure they could make it as light - plenty of dual legged offerings out there, none as light as this, even with skinny 28.6mm legs. The USD forks I have seen before have always been heavier like the Marzocchi RAC and Shiver. The Maverick DUC32 follows a similar principle as in dual crown USD fork (but with two legs), and was pretty light (3.5lbs for the original and 3.9 for the latest. They are longer travel though)
One 40mm tube will be stiffer and lighter than two 30mm tubes in fore/aft terms for a given wall thickness. But torsionally, I am not sure. I guess the proof is in the riding!0 -
Fatter legs can be stiffer with thinner tube walls though, remember, so a "fatter" fork isn't neccesarily heavier. They also don't have to be round.0
-
This is what I am saying, I think Cannondale have used a single large oversized tube as they could make it stiffer and lighter than two stanchions as on conventional forks, at least in one plane.0
-
What's this Cannondale chatter on a GT thread :shock: lol
I went through the 90's on GT's and always admired some of the Cannondale bikes.
The one thing that half annoyed me was the fact that there was always a new CAAD frame coming out - that was so much stronger and lighter than the previous version.0
